Cited by 1,024Memory Processes and InfluencesCognitive Functions and MemoryNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism

The effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes in human memory.

Craik, Fergus I. M., Govoni, Richard, Naveh-Benjamin, Moshe, Anderson, Nicole D.·1996·Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Abstract

The authors examined the effects of divided attention (DA) at encoding and retrieval in free recall, cued recall, and recognition memory in 4 experiments. Lists of words or word pairs were presented auditorily and recalled orally; the secondary task was a visual continuous reaction-time (RT) task with manual responses. At encoding, DA was associated with large reductions in memory performance, but small increases in RT; trade-offs between memory and RT were under conscious control. In contrast, DA at retrieval resulted in small or no reductions in memory, but in comparatively larger increases in RT, especially in free recall. Memory performance was sensitive to changes in task emphasis at encoding but not at retrieval. The results are discussed in terms of controlled and automatic processes and speculatively linked to underlying neuropsychological mechanisms.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0096-3445.125.2.159

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Studies with typical memory tasks (study-only) with separate encoding and retrieval phases found that performance on the primary learning task was only affected by a secondary task during encoding, but not retrieval.

    “Studies that have carried this out with typical memory tasks (study-only) with separate encoding and retrieval phases, found that performance on the primary learning task was only affected by the secondary task during encoding, but not retrieval (N. D. Anderson et al., 1998; Craik et al., 1996).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Craik, F. I. M., Govoni, R., Naveh-Benjamin, M., & Anderson, N. D.
Affiliations
University of Toronto (CA)
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
Published
1996
Volume
125
Issue
2
Pages
159-180
ISSN
  • 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2222
OpenAlex
W1976705823
Cited by
1,024
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 57 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 50 · 2018: 51 · 2017: 46 · 2016: 38 · 2015: 46 · 2014: 50 · 2013: 50 · 2012: 26
FWCI
8.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology General (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Keywords
divided attention, memory encoding, memory retrieval, free recall, cued recall, recognition memory
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Attention, Humans, Memory, Reaction Time, Mental Recall, Task Performance and Analysis, Time Factors, Vocabulary

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review